Tuesday, December 13, 2005

[Spielberg's Munich] was slammed yesterday by influential Hollywood trade magazine Variety. Editor-in-chief Peter Bart declared in his column, " 'Munich' takes such pains to avoid advocacy that it neuters its narrative. The story's thrust repeatedly stalls as all sides of an issue are didactically expounded." Todd McCarthy, Variety's chief film critic, wrote, "Members of the general public will be glancing at their watches rather than having epiphanies about world peace," and called the movie "a lumpy and overlong morality play on a failed thriller template." The script is "flabby," McCarthy wrote, and "Munich" "simply does not sustain intellectual interest on a meaningful level."

Previous reports were that it was absolutely brilliant. But if it sucks, it probably doesn't matter that Spielberg seems to be promoting a moral equivalence between the terrorists and the people who hunted them down. (For the latest example, see Spielberg's first interview on the movie, in Time magazine, in which he says: "I think the thing I'm very proud of is that [screenwriter] Tony Kushner and I and the actors did not demonize anyone in the film. We don't demonize our targets. They're individuals. They have families. Although what happened in Munich, I condemn" -- oh yeah, poor terrorists, individuals with families. I'd like to see him make a movie where he treats the 9/11 hijackers as 'individuals with families.' He wouldn't dare. (Of-course, I don't really think that Spielberg doesn't feel strongly against the murders, but the mealy-mouthed 'condemnation' formula... really...)